As parliament’s inquiry into the online harm encountered by young New Zealanders gets under way, there are concerns it will follow the same rushed process that resulted in Australia’s social media ban for under-16s.
New technologies that upend long-established ways of communicating often spark concern over how to ensure young people use these tools safely. We all want young people to be safe, and to grow up to be responsible citizens, but too often these concerns manifest in the form of punitive measures that seek to control young people, rather than teaching them the critical thinking and emotional skills they need to use new forms of media safely. From outlandish concerns that the Harry Potter books were bringing children into contact with drugs and the occult, to the (debunked) argument that video games make children violent, concerned adults, despite their best intentions, have historically been quick to blame new media and new trends for problems that almost always stem from an intersection of complicated social and economic factors.
The most recent source of unease for parents and policy makers has been social media – a term vague enough so to allow policymakers to lump niche messaging applications like Telegram together with large gaming platforms like Steam, and other video platforms like YouTube and TikTok to create an all-encompassing monolith that poses a risk to young people. Driven by (thoroughly debunkable) claims that social media use is the direct cause for a generation of anxious youth, legislators across the globe have called for inquiries into the use of social media among society’s “most vulnerable” demographic.
Aotearoa has recently followed this trend with the government’s Education and Workforce Committee recently announcing an inquiry into the harm young New Zealanders (might) encounter online and how government, businesses and society should work to counteract these harms. The terms of reference for the inquiry solicited responses from people addressing “the nature, severity, and prevalence of online harm experienced by young people in New Zealand, including but not limited to online bullying, exploitation, addictive use, mental health impacts, educational impacts, and exposure to harmful content”, with a particular eye to develop practical, cost-effective solutions to counteract online harm. Written submissions closed on July 30, with the committee hearing invitation-only oral submissions this month. It plans to report its findings to parliament by the end of November.
The concern with an inquiry of this nature is that it risks following the same rushed process to ban people under 16 from social media that the Australian government is set to implement at the end of 2025. The Australian approach was not only rushed, but was undertaken without seriously consulting the demographic that the bill claims to protect. Instead of teaching young people the skillset needed to be responsible, critically informed and safe digital citizens, the proposition to ban everyone under 16 from the vaguely defined monolith “social media” instead takes the convenient route of simply pretending the internet does not exist.
Out of sight, out of mind. But that approach is increasingly at odds with the reality of growing up in the 21st century for a range of reasons. Young people are taught using digital technologies, many of the skills they learn online will help them later in life to navigate increasingly digital economies and workplaces, culturally and linguistically diverse youths use social media to access and enhance their English, many of the civil services that they will need to grow up and navigate are offered online, and at a general level, the internet serves as a vital infrastructure for remote and disadvantaged youths to find solace with others in similar circumstances.
Of course we all want to protect young people from harm – whether online, or in real life – but framing social media bans as a step taken to “protect” young people from digital media actively works against the more realistic approach of working to protect them within the digital environment.
This isn’t just opinion, it’s backed up by evidence. In the response that a group of colleagues and I submitted to the Education and Workforce Committee, we argued that Aotearoa would do well to take an evidence-based and potentially world-leading approach to the education of young people that will equip them with the tools they need to be responsible, sensible and ultimately safer within the context of the digital environment. In the response, we walked through some of the common charges brought against social media. Chief among these charges is the argument that social media is to blame for a generation of mentally ill youth. This is a claim that is easy – and often politically convenient – to agree with. But taking a closer look at the surrounding social and economic factors involved in youth mental health, the claim that social media is the root cause of mental illness in youth doesn’t quite add up, especially in the New Zealand context.
Instead, there are many competing issues at play in Aotearoa: a broken mental health system, the inability or unwillingness of politicians and large corporations to act to prevent the climate crisis, and a general feeling of malaise that is solidified through the erosion of democratic processes and expansion of the surveillance state. In some ways, social media actually provides young people with the infrastructure needed to begin countering these issues: there is evidence that engaging with political issues on social media translates into real-life civic engagements like showing up to protests, volunteering and contacting elected officials.
But systematic issues remain firmly entrenched. For instance, in the case of Aotearoa’s strained mental health system, a survey of 540 psychiatrists across Aotearoa revealed that 94% of respondents found that the mental health system was unfit for purpose, and that increased funding was needed to better understand the socio-economic drivers of mental health issues. This is not a unique finding: other studies have revealed similar dissatisfaction among practitioners and patients in the mental health systems in Aotearoa. Globally, young people face a set of crises. Climate change, declining socio-economic equality, an increasingly polarised political landscape premised on hate and homogeneity and the fact that it is increasingly unaffordable to be able to live are much more likely to be drivers of mental health issues among young people. A policy designed to keep young people off of the internet is not going to help solve any of them.
Climate change, socio-economic inequality and the mental health crisis will not be solved by pretending the internet doesn’t exist. It will actively harm young people and future generations. Many of the crises that we face today require policy that is not purely content with cost-effective, simple solutions that the Education and Workforce Committee is soliciting. Instead, policy can and should be designed to educate, empower and ultimately let young people have a say in decisions that directly impact them and their future.
